WelcomeTo My World

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

"The profound nature of our existence is that we are able at any moment to connect to anyone, anywhere. History is there to remind us of how far we've come, and every day our journey is to continue with that progress of becoming more wise, more compassionate and more considerate human beings. Remembering Emmett though song is way to remind people that there is no need to continue with senseless crimes. Race and racism do no go hand in hand. We are only one race: human." Melody Gardot

"Melody Gardot’s tribute to the legacy of Emmett Till via the video, Preacher Man and song, helps to take each of us on an important emotional journey back in history. Preacher Man, sadly also raises our consciousness, as we witness the haunting tragedy of 14 year old Emmett Till’s death on August 28, 1955. At the same time, Melody's lyrics remind us of the many sons and daughters who, in more recent years have met a similar fate as Emmett. All have gone tragically and much too soon, but should never be forgotten. The Emmett Till Legacy Foundation is especially honored as we enter a special time of remembrance, commemorating the 60 year anniversary of Emmett Till’s death and the courage of Emmett Till’s mother, Mamie Till Mobley. Emmett Till's kidnapping, murder, open casket funeral along with the acquittal and later confession of the murderers shook the core of America and the world and is recognized as the impetus for the powerful civil rights movement." Emmett Till Legacy Foundation

100% of all income received by Decca from Vevo views of the “Preacherman” video will be paid through to the Emmett Till Legacy Foundation for the first year following initial UK release.

Monday, 27 April 2015

Gentrification is any facet of urban renewal that inevitably leads to displacement of the occupying demographic. This is a common and widespread controversial topic and term in urban planning.[1] It refers to shifts in an urban community lifestyle and an increasing share ofwealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values.[2]

Andrej Holm doubts the scientific usability, as gentrification nowadays stands for a sort of universal metaphor.[3] Hartmut Häußermann assumes a mere slogan without due background.[4]

Gentrification is typically the result of increased interest of external citizens to live in a certain environment. Early "gentrifiers" may belong to low income artists or boheme communities, which increase the attractiveness and flair of a certain quarter. Further steps are increased investments in a community by real estate development businesses, local government, or community activists and more economic development, increased attraction of business and lower crime rates. In addition to these potential benefits, gentrification can lead topopulation migration.

In a community undergoing gentrification, the average income increases. Poorer pre-gentrification residents who are unable to pay increased rents or property taxes find it necessary to leave.[5][6][7]

Origin and etymology

Gentrification is a multi-faceted phenomenon that can be defined in different ways.[8]

Causes

London and Palen

There are several approaches that attempt to explain the roots and the reasons behind the spread of gentrification. Bruce London and J. John Palen (1984) compiled a list of five explanations: (1) demographic-ecological, (2) sociocultural, (3) political-economical, (4) community networks, and (5) social movements.

Demographic-ecological

The first theory, demographic-ecological, attempts to explain gentrification through the analysis of demographics: population, social organization, environment, and technology. This theory frequently refers to the growing number of people between the ages of 25 and 35 in the 1970s, or the baby boom generation. Because the number of people that sought housing increased, the demand for housing increased also. The supply could not keep up with the demand; therefore cities were "recycled" to meet such demands (London and Palen, 1984). The baby boomers in pursuit of housing were very different, demographically, from their house-hunting predecessors. They married at an older age and had fewer children. Their children were born later. Women, both single and married, were entering the labour force at higher rates which led to an increase of dual wage-earner households. These households were typically composed of young, more affluent couples without children. Because these couples were child-free and were not concerned with the conditions of schools and playgrounds, they elected to live in the inner city in close proximity to their jobs. These more affluent people usually had white-collar, not blue-collar jobs. Since these white-collar workers wanted to live closer to work, a neighbourhood with more white-collar jobs was more likely to be invaded; the relationship between administrative activity and invasion was positively correlated (London and Palen, 1984).

Sociocultural

The second theory proposed by London and Palen is based on a sociocultural explanation of gentrification. This theory argues that values, sentiments, attitudes, ideas, beliefs, and choices should be used to explain and predict human behavior, not demographics, or "structural units of analysis" (i.e., characteristics of populations) (London and Palen, 1984). This analysis focuses on the changing attitudes, lifestyles, and values of the middle- and upper-middle-class of the 1970s. They were becoming more pro-urban than before, opting not to live in rural or even suburban areas anymore. These new pro-urban values were becoming more salient, and more and more people began moving into the cities. London and Palen refer to the first people to invade the cities as "urban pioneers." These urban pioneers demonstrated that the inner-city was an "appropriate" and "viable" place to live, resulting in what is called "inner city chic" (London and Palen, 1984). The opposing side of this argument is that dominant, or recurring, American values determine where people decide to live, not the changing values previously cited. This means that people choose to live in a gentrified area to restore it, not to alter it, because restoration is a "new way to realize old values" (London and Palen, 1984).

Political-economic

The third theoretical explanation of gentrification is political-economic and is divided into two approaches: traditional and Marxist. The traditional approach argues that economic and political factors have led to the invasion of the inner-city, hence the name political-economic. The changing political and legal climate of the 1950s and 60s (new civil rightslegislation, antidiscrimination laws in housing and employment, and desegregation) had an "unanticipated" role in the gentrification of neighborhoods. A decrease in prejudice led to more blacks moving to the suburbs and whites no longer rejected the idea of moving to the city. The decreasing availability of suburban land and inflation in suburban housing costs also inspired the invasion of the cities. The Marxist approach denies the notion that the political and economic influences on gentrification are invisible, but are intentional. This theory claims that "powerful interest groups follow a policy of neglect of the inner city until such time as they become aware that policy changes could yield tremendous profits" (London and Palen, 1984). Once the inner city becomes a source of revenue, the powerless residents are displaced with little or no regard from the powerful.

Community networks

The community-network approach is the fourth proposed by London and Palen. This views the community as an "interactive social group." Two perspectives are noted: community lost and community saved. The community lost perspective argues that the role of the neighborhood is becoming more limited due to technological advances in transportation and communication. This means that the small-scale, local community is being replaced with more large-scale, political and social organizations (Greer, 1962). The opposing side, the community saved side, argues that community activity increases when neighborhoods are gentrified because these neighborhoods are being revitalized.

Social movements

The fifth and final approach is social movements. This theoretical approach is focused on the analysis of ideologically based movements, usually in terms of leader-follower relationships. Those who support gentrification are encouraged by leaders (successful urban pioneers, political-economic elites, land developers, lending institutions, and even the Federal government in some instances) to revive the inner-city. Those who are in opposition are the people who currently reside in the deteriorated areas. They develop countermovements in order to gain the power necessary to defend themselves against the movements of the elite. These countermovements can be unsuccessful, though. The people who support reviving neighborhoods are also members, and their voices are the ones that the gentrifiers tend to hear (London and Palen, 1984).

As an economic process

Two discrete, sociological theories explain and justify gentrification as an economic process (production-side theory) and as a social process (consumption-side theory) that occurs when the suburban gentry tire of the automobile-dependent urban sprawl style of life; thus, professionals, empty nest aged parents, and recent university graduates perceive the attractiveness of the city center—earlier abandoned during white flight—especially if the poor community possesses a transport hub and its architecture sustains the pedestriantraffic that allows the proper human relations impeded by (sub)urban sprawl.[20]

Professor Smith and Marxist sociologists explain gentrification as a structural economic process; Ley explains gentrification as a natural outgrowth of increased professional employment in the central business district (CBD), and the creative sub-class's predilection for city living. "Liberal Ideology and the Post-Industrial City" (1980) describes and deconstructs the TEAM committee's effort to rendering Vancouver, BC, Canada, a "livable city". The investigators Rose, Beauregard, Mullins, Moore et al., who base themselves upon Ley's ideas, posit that "gentrifiers and their social and cultural characteristics [are] of crucial importance for an understanding of gentrification"—theoretical work Chris Hamnett criticized as insufficiently comprehensive, for not incorporating the "supply of dwellings and the role of developers [and] speculators in the process".[21]

Production-side theory

The production-side theory of urban gentrification derives from the work of human geographer Neil Smith, explaining gentrification as an economic process consequent to the fluctuating relationships among capital investments and the production of urban space. He asserts that restructuring of urban space is the visual component of a larger social, economic, and spacial restructuring of the contemporary capitalist economy.[22] Smith summarizes the causes of gentrification into five main processes: suburbanization and the emergence of rent gap, deindustrialization, spatial centralization and decentralization of capital, falling profit and cyclical movement of capital, and changes in demographics and consumption patterns.[22]

Suburbanization and rent gap

Suburban development derives from outward expansion of cities, often driven by sought profit and the availability of cheap land. This change in consumption causes a fall in inner city land prices, often resulting in poor upkeep and a neglect of repair for these properties by owners and landlords. The depressed land is then devalued, causing rent to be significantly cheaper than the potential rent that could be derived from the "best use" of the land while taking advantage of its central location.[22] From this derives the Rent-gap Theory describing the disparity between "the actual capitalized ground rent (land price) of a plot of land given its present use, and the potential ground rent that might be gleaned under a 'higher and better' use."[23]

The rent gap is fundamental to explaining gentrification as an economic process. When the gap is sufficiently wide, real estate developers, landlords, and other people with vested interests in the development of land perceive the potential profit to be derived from re-investing in inner-city properties and redeveloping them for new tenants. Thus, the development of a rent gap creates the opportunity for urban restructuring and gentrification.[22]

The de-industrialization of cities in developed nations reduces the number of blue-collar jobs available to the urban working class as well as middle-wage jobs with the opportunity for advancement, creating lost investment capital needed to physically maintain the houses and buildings of the city. Abandoned industrial areas create availability for land for the rent gap process.

Spatial centralization and decentralization of capital

De-industrialization is often integral to the growth of a divided white collaremployment, providing professional and management jobs that follow the spatial decentralization of the expanding world economy. However, somewhat counter-intuitively, globalization also is accompanied by spatial centralization of urban centers, mainly from the growth of the inner city as a base for headquarter and executive decision-making centers. This concentration can be attributed to the need for rapid decisions and information flow, which makes it favorable to have executive centers in close proximity to each other. Thus, the expanding effect of suburbanization as well as agglomeration to city centers can coexist. These simultaneous processes can translate to gentrification activities when professionals have a high demand to live near their executive workplaces in order to reduce decision-making time.[22]

Falling profit and the cyclical movement of capital

This section of Smith's theory attempts to describe the timing of the process of gentrification. At the end of a period of expansion for the economy, such as a boom in postwar suburbs, accumulation of capital leads to a falling rate of profit. It is then favorable to seek investment outside the industrial sphere to hold off onset of an economic crisis. By this time, the period of expansion has inevitably led to the creation of rent gap, providing opportunity for capital reinvestment in this surrounding environment.[22]

Changes in demographic and consumption patterns

Smith emphasizes that demographic and life-style changes are more of an exhibition of the form of gentrification, rather than real factors behind gentrification. The aging baby-boomer population, greater participation of women in the workforce, and the changes in marriage and childrearing norms explain the appearance that gentrification takes, or as Smith says, "why we have proliferating quiche bars rather than Howard Johnson's".[22]

Friday, 24 April 2015

With the news coming out of Washington D.C, that the US Supreme Court announced they will hear Toca v. Louisiana, which will make their decision of June 25, 2012, "Banning Sentences of Juveniles in Prison for Life Without Parole, as a violation of their Constitutional rights under the 8th Amendment. 20 US States have Retro-activated to when the Inmates committed the crime and Juveniles that were placed in Adult facilities for unfair sentences would be eligible for re-sentencing.

Although Idaho Judges have the Discretion in Sentencing a Juvenile of a crime such as Murder, and the Supreme Court in their June 25, 2012 decision did not ban completely Juvenile Life Without Parole, the fact that Mandatory Sentencing IS a violation of a youth offenders 8th Amendment Rights, should not stop the State of Idaho from doing away with Life Without Parole for Juveniles.

In their Decision, the Supreme Court said.

(a) The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560. That right “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the offense. Ibid.

Two strands of precedent reflecting the concern with proportionate punishment come together here. The first has adopted categorical bans on sentencing practices based on mismatches between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of a penalty. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407. Several cases in this group have specially focused on juvenile offenders, because of their lesser culpability. Thus, Roper v. Simmons held that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for children, and Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, concluded that the Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense. Graham further likened life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty, thereby evoking a second line of cases. In those decisions, this Court has required sentencing authorities to consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of his offense before sentencing him to death. See, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (plurality opinion). Here, the confluence of these two lines of precedent leads to the conclusion that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.

(2) The States next argue that courts and prosecutors sufficiently consider a juvenile defendant’s age, as well as his background and the circumstances of his crime, when deciding whether to try him as an adult. But this argument ignores that many States use mandatory transfer systems. In addition, some lodge the decision in the hands of the prosecutors, rather than courts. And even where judges have transfer-stage discretion, it has limited utility, because the decision maker typically will have only partial information about the child or the circumstances of his offense. Finally, because of the limited sentencing options in some juvenile courts, the transfer decision may present a choice between a light sentence as a juvenile and standard sentencing as an adult. It cannot substitute for discretion at post trial sentencing. Pp. 25−27.

Upon hours of research by members of the Juvenile Justice Advocates of the World, we have come to the conclusion that Torey Michael Adamcik did NOT receive a fair trial:

(1) The trial Attorneys did not give Torey competent representation. When the Adamcik’s hired the firm, the night that they took Torey into the Police Station for the second interview, the Attorneys were “To busy to go with them, and instructed Sean and Shannon to refuse to allow Torey to answer questions until they could be present.

a. However the Police bullied and harassed the Adamcik’s and told them that IF they could not Interview Torey that night, he would be taken into custody, giving the feeling that IF Torey talked and told them about the night in question, he would go home with them, as they believed that Torey was innocent.

b. The Police did not tell them that Brian had already confessed and was locked up, and had led them to the evidence in Black Rock Canyon.

c. Sean and Shannon on several Occasions that day told the detectives that they did not want to bring Torey in without Legal Counsel and had an appointment later that afternoon, and would then contact them when they had set up a time with the Attorney’s to be there with Torey.

d. The Detectives refused to hear this and continued to threaten to lock Torey up, UNLESS he came into the Police Station to be interviewed.

e. The Attorneys took the case but were too busy to accompany them to the Police Station, where again Shannon and Sean invoked Torey’s right to counsel.

f. The Detectives finally convinced the Adamcik’s that this was JUST and interview as Torey was one of the last to have seen Cassie alive, and needed help with their investigation to apprehend the “person or persons” involved.

g. The Adamciks finally gave in, The Detectives read Torey his Miranda Warning, and Torey signed the waiver. The Detectives then began to question Torey in Sean and Shannon’s presence. About an hour into the interview, Torey said, I would like to talk to my attorney, so the Detectives stopped the questioning, took Torey to another room and left him by himself. Shannon left to go pick up their younger son at his practice, and the Detectives talked to Sean, and told him that they KNEW Torey was lying to them and Sean needed to get him to tell the Truth. We have not been able to determine how long this was, BUT, we do know that Sean did not want to go back in until after Shannon got back, but the Detectives kept pushing. Finally Sean got them to go in and talk to Torey and then they all went back to the Interview room, where the Detectives did not question Torey, but rather told Sean things, and then Sean would turn to Torey and ask, “is this right”, or “Did you see anyone out there that could have done this”, along with a bunch of other questions. There is no record that they re-mirandized Torey, nor that Torey signed another waiver, that we have been able to find.

(2) The Defense team did not subpoena the evidence for independent testing.

(3) The Defense did not call expert witnesses to refute the Prosecution.

(4) The Defense did not call Torey to explain in his own words the evidence against him.

(5) The Defense let the Jury believe that they would hear from the Psychologist that evaluated Torey, but instead after just a couple of witnesses the Defense rested.

a. If the Psychologist had been allowed to Testify, the Jury would have heard him say: "Adamcik is immature for his age, saying the average adolescent doesn't have a fully developed frontal brain lobe - the part of the brain determined to control compulsion - and that the teen was even further behind others of his age.”

“Adamcik is intellectually less mature than we would expect a 17-year-old to be.”

“Adamcik would be a very low risk to re-offend and called him a good candidate for rehabilitation, unless he were sent to prison.”

“All the psychological tests show no evidence that would suggest a pathological personality.”

“Adamcik needs mental health care for the suicidal thoughts he's currently harboring and education and time to develop his adult brain capacity. Prison would inhibit the ability to rehabilitate Adamcik" (Hancock 2007)

So we the undersigned Respectfully Demand that Torey Michael Adamcik have his current conviction overturned, and the case sent back to the Trial Court for a new trial and IF convicted, resentenced to a sentence with possible Parole.

Monday, 20 April 2015

"House of Horrors" is a co-production between Investigation Discovery and Britain's Channel 5 network seen in the United Kingdom and all around the world. "Investigation Discovery is the definitive home for in-depth documentaries on cases making headlines today, and 'House of Horrors' gives viewers a comprehensive look at a tragic – and eventually, heroic – story even as it continues to develop." On April 28th, 2015 at 10:00pm don't miss "THE HOUSE OF HORROR" Episode featuring: THE LAURA COWAN STORYhttps://www.facebook.com/events/1561809840774134/

Political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal nearly died – and remains in grave danger – from a diabetic condition that the Pennsylvania prison system failed to diagnose in his decades behind bars. He is not alone. “The Bureau of Justice reported some 40% of prisoners and jail inmates in 2011-2012 reporting chronic medical condition such as asthma, cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure—and diabetes.”

“Mumia’s condition highlights the systemic neglect and abuse of prisoners in our nation’s vast and ever growing system of mass incarceration.”

What does it mean for hundreds of thousands of prisoners in the United States when the world’s most famous prisoner faces possible death from medical neglect in a Pennsylvania prison? Often called the “Voice of the Voiceless” for his countless publications and broadcasts revealing the injustices of the criminal justice system, Mumia Abu-Jamal has seen his health slip away in a matter of months. Thousands of supporters worldwide and frequent visitors could not stop the burning black lesions that covered his entire body or the profound fatigue that, since January, has sucked him into trance-like sleeps, or guards who punished him with denial of calls, visitors and yard for sleeping through morning alarms and the morning count. What does it say that on March 30, Mumia Abu-Jamal fell unconscious with uncontrolled—and undiagnosed—diabetes?

Mumia’s condition highlights the systemic neglect and abuse of prisoners in our nation’s vast and ever growing system of mass incarceration. A daily diet high in carbohydrates, salt and sugar has left an estimated 80 thousand suffering from diabetes. Compounding the inadequate nutrition is the sub-par medical care provided by a vast for-profit provider that reaps some $1.5 billion a year in profits from prison healthcare contracts. Using an HMO model that puts cost-cutting above all, Corizon Correctional Healthcare has paid millions in legal settlements over inadequate or bungled treatment. Not surprisingly, the Bureau of Justice reported some 40% of prisoners and jail inmates in 2011-2012 reporting chronic medical condition such as asthma, cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure—and diabetes.

For three days, Mumia received treatment at the ICU of a nearby medical clinic. His blood sugar and sodium level counts were catastrophically high at 779 and 168, respectively. The last time Mumia was hospitalized was on December 9, 1981, the night of the killing of Officer Daniel Faulkner, for which Mumia was convicted in a trial fraught with constitutional violations. That same night Mumia was shot and beaten within an inch of his life by police. When he was finally taken to the hospital in a paddy wagon, he was thrown by police onto the floor of the emergency room entrance. After surgery, he woke to a police officer stomping on his urine bag.

Mumia now languishes in the prison infirmary facing new assaults – the cut-rate, sub-par care and inadequate nutrition that contributed to his earlier health decline and crisis. With a still abnormally high glucose level, hard crusted skin covering his body, and a dramatic weight lost of over 50 pounds, he is in dire need of the attention of specialists in both endocrinology and dermatology, and healthful food.

As Mumia’s health deteriorates, he would want us to draw attention not only to his plight but the plight of all this nation’s prisoners who receive a malnourishing diet and sub-standard health care at the hands of rapacious private contractors. The race and class dimensions of this crisis disprove the notion that race doesn’t matter in the age of a black president. The majority of U.S. prisoners are African American and Latino males in their childbearing years, imprisoned in a system that regularly violates their fundamental human rights and ravages their health. Mumia would want us to use his suffering to demonstrate that those relegated to the lowest strata of our society—imprisoned black, brown, and poor—suffer not only their sentences but illness and death by neglect.

Heidi Boghosian is a lawyer in New York City.

Johanna Fernandez is Assistant Professor of History at Baruch College.

Lawyers, family say Sanford innocent

Who is Davontae Sanford? He is Detroit's Forgotten Child. Innocence raped in the grips of overzealous cops and a prosecutor who doesn't give a damn about justice or innocence. She wants Detroit to forget Davontae!! To ignore her great evil misdeeds and sweep the case under the carpet. And your silence has made it all possible Detroit. Until it happens to your child - of course. BUT she suffered a MAJOR defeat at the Michigan Court of Appeals when that court granted Davontae relief on every issue he raised but one; namely whether Private Investigator Linda Boris can testify as to the details of the murders that Vincent Smothers confided in her --as he has to CNN; the Associated Press; his attorney and last but not least to Detroit Homicide investigators. Davontae cross-appealed that issue at the Supreme court. Smothers wants to confess on the record to clear Davontae for the four murders he did not commit. What does Smothers have to gain by confessing to a crime that he knows will get him a mandatory life sentence? Nothing! But Kym Worthy has a lot to lose if he does. Millions of dollars in civil liability and her integrity (which isn't much) for WRONGFULLY convicting that young boy! And Detroit? You are okay with this? Well we can't wait for sleepers to wake up from a dream. Fortunately one appeals court made up of all conservative judges by the way ruled in Davontaes favor. The prosecutor appealed that decision to the Michigan Supreme Court where we are now in a,wait and see hold for the high court. I am cautiously optimistic however that given the fact the three judge panel who ruled in Davontaes favor were all conservatives the state high court which is majority conservative will deny Worthy's appeal. And then the ugly court battle will begin. She will NOT be able to stop Smothers from confessing on the record and convince the trial judge to sustain Davontaes convictions. There are many lawyers on both sides. Smothers will flip her case upside down and she knows it. Hence her reason for fighting to stop him. Treacherous and devious she is.

Welcome To My World

About Me

DARCY D= YOU MUST BELIEVE.STANDING UP FOR THE INNOCENT C.E.O
The United Kingdom resident champions causes of the voiceless, the powerless and the weak, particularly in North America. She campaigns for petitions on behalf of incarcerated human trafficking.